Crazy Thai Economic Math, Brainiacs Please Translate!

[Jingthing]

OK, if exports are 70% of Thai GDP, and they are falling over 10 percent for four months in a row (that is at least a 40 percent decline in a short period) how could the shrinkage to the total economy ONLY be 3 percent per annum?

I am flummoxed. Please break it down ...

Thailand, the region's second biggest economy, has seen exports, which are worth 70 per cent of GDP, fall by double digit percentage points for four months in a row, leading the government to predict the economy will shrink by 3 per cent this year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...mulus-plan.html

[trogers]

The fall is partly cushioned by income from crazy expats spending on booze and dames...

This is something no govt can stated officially...

So much for maths. Go out there and dirty your feet and see the real world.

[Jingthing]

Maths? Are you Brits having a sale on s's?

[trogers]

Maths? Are you Brits having a sale on s's?

Things I do when I am dry:

http://www.mymaths.co.uk/

[Thaddeus]

Maths? Are you Brits having a sale on s's?

The full word isn't mathematic, so yes, there is an 's' on the end.

Plus, I wouldn't trust any monetary figures quoted by any organisation in Thailand.

[Carmine6]

OK, if exports are 70% of Thai GDP, and they are falling over 10 percent for four months in a row (that is at least a 40 percent decline in a short period) how could the shrinkage to the total economy ONLY be 3 percent per annum?

I am flummoxed. Please break it down ...

Thailand, the region's second biggest economy, has seen exports, which are worth 70 per cent of GDP, fall by double digit percentage points for four months in a row, leading the government to predict the economy will shrink by 3 per cent this year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...mulus-plan.html

That doesn't seem to be a quote. It's perhaps the journalist doing research on his own since it mentions other countries as well. Par for the course since most journalists don't know jack about economics and don't know how to present it.

GDP measures the spending/investing in the country plus exports minus imports. Basically it's the activity in the country plus net exports. If imports fall much faster than exports and all other activities stayed the same, GDP could actually go up even while exports are falling.

There could theoretically be countries with exports higher than GDP, so that can be a misleading measure. Places like Hong Kong and Singapore would be possibilities, where there's so much imports that turn right around as exports to someplace else. Only the profit would count toward that country's GDP.

Also, what does "fall by double digit percentage" mean? Is that every month in a row is 10% or more lower than the month before? (Highly unlikely) Or is every month lower than the same month the year before? (More plausible but still maybe not right.) It could also be an annualization of a rate. So it if were a 1% decrease for a month, that's a 12% annualized rate.

It's likely accurate information poorly reported, or poorly interpreted by the journalist.

[Naam]

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk"

the british version of the american "National Enquirer". an excellent paper for those who are interested in important geopolitical topics such as "Was Princess Diana pregnant with Dodi's child and did she really intend to convert to Islam?"

[OriginalPoster]

Maths? Are you Brits having a sale on s's?

The word "maths" is commonly used instead of "math" in British English as shorthand for "mathematics". It's one of those "learned" vs. "learnt", "gas" vs. "petrol" things.

Edited April 1, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[Carmine6]

I looked up the data to see what the story is. It is a double digit decline from the same month the prior year. February exports were actually higher than January and December. The double digit decline is when comparing Dec 2008 vs Dec 2007, Jan 2009 vs Jan 2008, etc.

Imports have decreased more than exports, increasing the net export position. 2008 was actually a tiny net import position of 811 million baht. 2007 was net exports of 12 billion baht. Graph attached.

The main decrease in imports are in the inputs to production. Mineral and Metal Products, Oil, Chemicals and Plastic Materials. Those are about 2/3 of the decrease for Jan and Feb.

Figures from the Bank of Thailand.

http://www.bot.or.th/English/Statistics/Ec...ionalTrade.aspx

Thai_Exports_Imports_2007_to_2009.pdf

[eljeque]

OK, if exports are 70% of Thai GDP, and they are falling over 10 percent for four months in a row (that is at least a 40 percent decline in a short period) how could the shrinkage to the total economy ONLY be 3 percent per annum?

I will guess

10% / 12 months = 0.833% / month

4 months of 10% yearly decline 4 x 0.833% = 3.33%

But, if the 10% month on month decline continues, for the next eight months, for a total of 12 months, then there will have been a 10% decline..

[badge]

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk"

the british version of the american "National Enquirer". an excellent paper for those who are interested in important geopolitical topics such as "Was Princess Diana pregnant with Dodi's child and did she really intend to convert to Islam?"

Your mistaken. The Telegraph is a formal 'broadsheet' read, whereas your presumably refering to trashy 'tabloid' papers, like The Sun for example.

[PeaceBlondie]

I seriously doubt that exports contribute to 70% of Thailand's GDP.

[Carmine6]

I seriously doubt that exports contribute to 70% of Thailand's GDP.

Mathematically it is about right. However, the real contribution to GDP is the net export amount because imports are subtracted.

2008 GDP was maybe 8.5 trillion baht. Exports were 5.9 trillion baht, but imports were also 5.9 trillion baht. So imports are negative 70%. Doesn't really make sense that way.

I looked up at Singapore and to see how weird it is to view only exports relative to GDP. For their Q4 their exports were 134 trillion Singapore dollars but their GDP was only 64 trillion Singapore dollars. Doesn't make sense without considering their imports of 126 trillion Singapore dollars.

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/latestdata.html

[thaimate]

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk"

the british version of the american "National Enquirer". an excellent paper for those who are interested in important geopolitical topics such as "Was Princess Diana pregnant with Dodi's child and did she really intend to convert to Islam?"

Naam

you dissapoint me ,making rash comments is unlike you.the Telegraph is a serious broadsheet newspaper like the Times and is as far removed from the enquirer as could possible be.

[Naam]

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk"

the british version of the american "National Enquirer". an excellent paper for those who are interested in important geopolitical topics such as "Was Princess Diana pregnant with Dodi's child and did she really intend to convert to Islam?"

Naam you dissapoint me ,making rash comments is unlike you.the Telegraph is a serious broadsheet newspaper like the Times and is as far removed from the enquirer as could possible be.

T-Mate, the Telegraph, like other formerly 'serious' papers and magazines (not only in the British Empire but worldwide), has changed in recent years from serious and reliable to sensation grabbing. all what counts nowadays is "number of copies sold" and "let the youngsters write what they want as long our readers buy it".

[OriginalPoster]

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk"

the british version of the american "National Enquirer". an excellent paper for those who are interested in important geopolitical topics such as "Was Princess Diana pregnant with Dodi's child and did she really intend to convert to Islam?"

Naam you dissapoint me ,making rash comments is unlike you.the Telegraph is a serious broadsheet newspaper like the Times and is as far removed from the enquirer as could possible be.

T-Mate, the Telegraph, like other formerly 'serious' papers and magazines (not only in the British Empire but worldwide), has changed in recent years from serious and reliable to sensation grabbing. all what counts nowadays is "number of copies sold" and "let the youngsters write what they want as long our readers buy it".

Should we take that to mean that you take issue with their editorial positions and the "slant" of their reportage? If there ever was a boring paper it's the Telegraph, they scarcely are writing articles about women in York getting impregnated by space aliens (though that's a problem that someone ought to look into).

Edited April 2, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[Naam]

i am referring to Telegraph articles like the recent one in which it was claimed that "Brown will announce the caving in of offshore tax h[e]avens at G20 summit". the journalist insinuated that the Telegraph was the only newspaper having that information. the latter is of course correct, the news is bullshit.

[badge]

I seriously doubt that exports contribute to 70% of Thailand's GDP.

[...]For their Q4 their exports were 134 trillion Singapore dollars but their GDP was only 64 trillion Singapore dollars. Doesn't make sense without considering their imports of 126 trillion Singapore dollars.

Really!? Singapore GDP was USD$40Tln? Almost 400% the GDP of USA? Billions perhaps no?

[trogers]

I seriously doubt that exports contribute to 70% of Thailand's GDP.

[...]For their Q4 their exports were 134 trillion Singapore dollars but their GDP was only 64 trillion Singapore dollars. Doesn't make sense without considering their imports of 126 trillion Singapore dollars.

Really!? Singapore GDP was USD$40Tln? Almost 400% the GDP of USA? Billions perhaps no?

It has to be trillions...comparing the pay of its PM to that of Bush's.

[Carmine6]

I seriously doubt that exports contribute to 70% of Thailand's GDP.

[...]For their Q4 their exports were 134 trillion Singapore dollars but their GDP was only 64 trillion Singapore dollars. Doesn't make sense without considering their imports of 126 trillion Singapore dollars.

Really!? Singapore GDP was USD$40Tln? Almost 400% the GDP of USA? Billions perhaps no?

Yeah, I'm so used to trillions now that I defaulted to that. The US budget and debt are presented in thousands of biliions.

It is billions of Singapore dollars. 64,309 million Signapore dollars, or 64.3 billion for Q4 2008. Exports were 134 billion and imports 126 billion.

[badge]

Yeah, I'm so used to trillions now that I defaulted to that. The US budget and debt are presented in thousands of biliions.

It is billions of Singapore dollars. 64,309 million Signapore dollars, or 64.3 billion for Q4 2008. Exports were 134 billion and imports 126 billion.

an easy mistake to make thesedays!

[Misty]

OK, if exports are 70% of Thai GDP, and they are falling over 10 percent for four months in a row (that is at least a 40 percent decline in a short period) how could the shrinkage to the total economy ONLY be 3 percent per annum?

I am flummoxed. Please break it down ...

Thailand, the region's second biggest economy, has seen exports, which are worth 70 per cent of GDP, fall by double digit percentage points for four months in a row, leading the government to predict the economy will shrink by 3 per cent this year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...mulus-plan.html

Hi Jingthing,

In case it's not clear, net exports (exports less imports) comprise a much lower component of GDP than gross exports (which could indeed be about 70%, but this is not a useful number for analysis). This is because a large amount of import contents are components used to make exports. Net exports used to be about 15% of GDP back when I looked at these things.

At the moment, gross exports have been falling like a rock, but gross imports are falling even faster. So net exports is potentially even a net contributor to GDP growth (at the moment--of course, this could change going forward).

My guess is private consumption is falling and that's possibly the biggest challenge to Thailand's GDP growth figures in the immediate term.

Anyone with current numbers please post. GDP breakdown by expenditure as I remember it from years ago: net exports c.15%, private consumption c.50%, private investment c.20% (was as high as 40% in the 93-95 era), gov't spending c.10% the rest errors & ommissions to make it all add up

Cheers, Misty